Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
BBC to try and charge pensioners for TV Licence Fee
Options
Comments
-
The BBC is amazing. I'd happily pay a licence fee for it, regardless of age.0
-
-
-
Slutmonkey57b wrote: »Hundreds of junk channels.
The BBC is without a doubt the best broadcaster in the world, bar none. And as for being an establishment bastion, you only have to look at the attacks it's endured from the Tories, Murdoch, Rothermere et al to see just how frightened the establishment are of a broadcaster who isn't tied to commercial interests.
Without the BBC, and its ilk, there likely wouldn't be such a concept as liberal at all.
I don't care about the liberal bit. Just look at BBC 4 any day. It's daily documentaries knock the socks of rte's output or most of Europe. (RTE gets a bad press here because it is inevitably compared to the BBC)0 -
The BBC license fee is outdated nonsense and I look forward to the day when this bloated fat cat of an organisation is forced to trim off its many layers of blubber.
The BBC always boasts of how respected and diverse its programming is. If it is so loved then make it a subscription/paid for service and see how many of its "loyal supporters" actually do want to see its programmes. Personally I rarely watch any BBC stuff.
David Attenborough won't be around for ever and the office was 15 odd years ago. Most of the things I watch would be American based, HBO etc. No one should be forced to pay for a tv service they do not want or use. How undemocratic is that?
The BBC should stop acting like its the only broadcaster available like it was at the start. We now have hundreds of free to air and subscription services. The BBC should take their fat publicly funded heads out of their arse and move on.0 -
Advertisement
-
The BBC license fee is outdated nonsense and I look forward to the day when this bloated fat cat of an organisation is forced to trim off its many layers of blubber.
The BBC always boasts of how respected and diverse its programming is. If it is so loved then make it a subscription/paid for service and see how many of its "loyal supporters" actually do want to see its programmes. Personally I rarely watch any BBC stuff.
David Attenborough won't be around for ever and the office was 15 odd years ago. Most of the things I watch would be American based, HBO etc. No one should be forced to pay for a tv service they do not want or use. How undemocratic is that?
The BBC should stop acting like its the only broadcaster available like it was at the start. We now have hundreds of free to air and subscription services. The BBC should take their fat publicly funded heads out of their arse and move on.0 -
timthumbni wrote: »The BBC license fee is outdated nonsense and I look forward to the day when this bloated fat cat of an organisation is forced to trim off its many layers of blubber.
The BBC always boasts of how respected and diverse its programming is. If it is so loved then make it a subscription/paid for service and see how many of its "loyal supporters" actually do want to see its programmes. Personally I rarely watch any BBC stuff.
David Attenborough won't be around for ever and the office was 15 odd years ago. Most of the things I watch would be American based, HBO etc. No one should be forced to pay for a tv service they do not want or use. How undemocratic is that?
The BBC should stop acting like its the only broadcaster available like it was at the start. We now have hundreds of free to air and subscription services. The BBC should take their fat publicly funded heads out of their arse and move on.
You literally have no understanding of just why it is that the BBC exist, and as such it's no wonder you hold such a backward position. Thankfully you are not in charge although the Tories will no doubt fulfil your desires at some point in the future.0 -
timthumbni wrote: »The BBC license fee is outdated nonsense and I look forward to the day when this bloated fat cat of an organisation is forced to trim off its many layers of blubber.
The BBC always boasts of how respected and diverse its programming is. If it is so loved then make it a subscription/paid for service and see how many of its "loyal supporters" actually do want to see its programmes. Personally I rarely watch any BBC stuff.
David Attenborough won't be around for ever and the office was 15 odd years ago. Most of the things I watch would be American based, HBO etc. No one should be forced to pay for a tv service they do not want or use. How undemocratic is that?
The BBC should stop acting like its the only broadcaster available like it was at the start. We now have hundreds of free to air and subscription services. The BBC should take their fat publicly funded heads out of their arse and move on.
The BBC charges 160 quid a year. How much do sky charge for similar levels of programming? And how much *original* content do they produce for that money? Content they can sell elsewhere? Content that even after you've paid an exorbitant monthly fee for, is still interrupted by ads?
Sky will charge people almost that much every month just to watch sports.
In any case, the BBC are not a commercial entity. They're not supposed to make a profit. They're supposed to support the society, and they do it. The amount of local radio, tv, schools programming and "niche" things they do which you may not personally be interested in but whose audience wouldn't ever get coverage from a commercial entity.
"I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" isn't what I'd call a useful argument.
For contrast, RTE charge a similar amount for fewer stations of lesser quality and original programming which would get laughed off a local BBC radio programme. And tubridy. And is interrupted by ads.0 -
You literally have no understanding of just why it is that the BBC exist, and as such it's no wonder you hold such a backward position. Thankfully you are not in charge although the Tories will no doubt fulfil your desires at some point in the future.
I think you will find it is the BBC that holds a backward position. Enforced payment of a fee plus those ridiculous threatening letters they like to send out re non payment of said fee. (Even to households with no tv)
I say again if their product is so good, (and that's very subjective and debatable) then let them charge a subscription for their product. Being so good I'm sure they will get loads of voluntary subscriptions and then they can try to operate in the real world. I can't see how I can be considered backward for suggesting they test just how good and essential they are. I suspect they overestimate their own importance.
Re the Tories, fingers crossed.0 -
Slutmonkey57b wrote: »The BBC charges 160 quid a year. How much do sky charge for similar levels of programming? And how much *original* content do they produce for that money? Content they can sell elsewhere? Content that even after you've paid an exorbitant monthly fee for, is still interrupted by ads?
Sky will charge people almost that much every month just to watch sports.
In any case, the BBC are not a commercial entity. They're not supposed to make a profit. They're supposed to support the society, and they do it. The amount of local radio, tv, schools programming and "niche" things they do which you may not personally be interested in but whose audience wouldn't ever get coverage from a commercial entity.
"I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" isn't what I'd call a useful argument.
For contrast, RTE charge a similar amount for fewer stations of lesser quality and original programming which would get laughed off a local BBC radio programme. And tubridy. And is interrupted by ads.
"Similar levels of programming" is too broad a question to answer. sky sports can be expensive as it has live premiership football. The BBC does not so no comparison is possible.
The good thing about sky is that if you think it's so expensive then you don't need to keep paying it. I use Netflix at 6 quid a month. That provides me with a pretty good library of films and tv series all available to stream,when I want and as much as I want.
I also have a 6 month entertainment sky pack using now tv that cost me £15 quid including a now TVs box.
Again totally up to me if I want to pay for this. No threatening letters unlike the Brixton broadcasting Corporation.
Most people I know either sky plus or you view plus their programmes no so no need to sit through ads any more.
I've never watched rte so I don't know much about turbridy but let me see your turbridy and raise you a Stephen Nolan. (Local BBC NI equivalent, only worse)
The BBC gravy train has been running out of control for too long.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're still choosing to deliberately miss the point.
The BBC's remit is not to produce commercially viable programming that suits your personal requirements.
It is to provide a space for programming which reflects the most diverse and unique parts of the country. So it has woman's hour on radio 4, and top gear on tv. It has BBC local news and doctor who on BBC America.
As to the overpriced gravy train, let's take an excellent recent example:
The BBC used to broadcast formula 1 live for which it charged no extra and produced probably the best coverage in the world (many broadcasters around the world agreed to buy the BBC's coverage instead of producing their own). When cuts were forced, sky took over and effectively recreated the same presentation ideas and format, with many of the BBC staff. For showing that sport *alone*, it charges over twice what the BBC charges for everything that it does. Now which organisation is an inefficient, outdated, blasted and full of fat cats?0 -
I happen to think if BBC scrapped licence fee and went Subscription service tomorrow they would have no trouble getting subscribers at all (as long as they keep doing what they have been doing for years) but the amount of money they loose (apart from subsidising the pensioner free licences) and people that dodge paying the TV licence (and then paying the authority - it used to be post office- to find the licence evaders) I am very surprised they havent gone down the route of Subscription TV. Maybe they could do different bouquets of BBC programmes at different prices like sky do so that anyone who just wants plain BBC1/2 and Radio/2 pay the lowest price subscription and the consumers who want the whole BBC TV & Radio service and i-player pay the full premium subscription.0
-
Andy From Sligo wrote: »I happen to think if BBC scrapped licence fee and went Subscription service tomorrow they would have no trouble getting subscribers at all (as long as they keep doing what they have been doing for years) but the amount of money they loose (apart from subsidising the pensioner free licences) and people that dodge paying the TV licence (and then paying the authority - it used to be post office- to find the licence evaders) I am very surprised they havent gone down the route of Subscription TV. Maybe they could do different bouquets of BBC programmes at different prices like sky do so that anyone who just wants plain BBC1/2 and Radio/2 pay the lowest price subscription and the consumers who want the whole BBC TV & Radio service and i-player pay the full premium subscription.
Linking public service output to a pay-TV model is an oxymoron. People seem to forget that when talking about suggesting a subscription model for them, something no other PSB in the world does.
Also how does one enforce subscription access only for FM & MW radio content?
There are only two OECD countries which do not have a dedicated PSB or "State Broadcaster" with its own TV station with statutory public service commitments, they are Mexico & New Zealand (unless you include their Maori language channel). Don't know about Mexico, but everyone I've spoken to about TV in NZ says it's worse than Australia, and Australian television IMO is so poor that it makes RTÉ look good in comparison.0 -
Hardly the case nowadays.purplepanda wrote: »This post had been deleted.
Well public service broadcasting so. It's not like it's in any way comparable to the type of state broadcaster (political propaganda machine) that you're referring to.This post has been deleted.0 -
timthumbni wrote: »Again totally up to me if I want to pay for this. No threatening letters unlike the Brixton broadcasting Corporation.
The UK Licence fee is classified as a tax and so paying for this puts it on a par with other taxes you may be liable for, likes rates or customs duties. The fact that other broadcasters that operate subscription services are irrelevant. In fact the TV Licence tax is one that is legitimately not very difficult to avoid under its present terms.
And ultimately this is self defeating. In the UK pretty much all TV channels are reliant on advertising to fund themselves. Even for subscription channels most non-premium channels need advertising to survive as the fees paid for being part of subscription channels is very small. And even premium channels like Sky Sports still have regular channels and teleshopping! With so many people now doing ad-skipping with their PVRs, advertisers are less willing to pay for ad time if few people will actually see it (that's why Ofcom now allow a limited amount of product placement) and if channels don't get ad revenue, they close. And if channels close there's less channels to choose from and their content can also be affected.Most people I know either sky plus or you view plus their programmes no so no need to sit through ads any more.
So you never watch RTÉ, alas you "don't know much about turbridy" then how on earth are you qualified to say that he is better or worse than Stevie Nolan?I've never watched rte so I don't know much about turbridy but let me see your turbridy and raise you a Stephen Nolan. (Local BBC NI equivalent, only worse)
You do know that the BBC has been undergoing cutbacks now for at least the last six years? Just to give some examples...The BBC gravy train has been running out of control for too long.
* BBC Three is to close its linear broadcast channel next month, moving to being a mostly online service with occasional programmes on BBC One & Two.
* BBC Two content has been scaled right back where programming outside peak hours are now mostly repeats or BBC News simulcast.
* In five years from 2009-14 senior management numbers and respective salaries have been cut by more than one third.
* BBC Red button content has been slashed from a six screen service on satellite & cable to a single screen with occasional capacity obtained for special events and a "connected" service on compatible services only.
* BBC online content has been continually subject to review which included a 25% spending cut in 2011.
* They have reduced the satellite capacity they rent from SES for Sky & Freesat viewers, saving several million pounds in the process.
* There have been significant cuts in spending for programming rights, sport being one of the most visible. It has now given up covering F1 after downgrading from covering all races to only roughly half. It has lost the rights to show Football League highlights and from this year it is now sharing 6 nations rugby with ITV. Horse racing and darts have similarly been affected.
* More cutbacks are still in the pipeline. Some of the following suggestions that have been made include having BBC Four go the same way as BBC Three; moving the BBC News channel to being online only; increase the amount of simulcast programming between BBC News and the BBC World News channels; either merging BBC Local Radio stations and/or increase regional simulcast output outside the main listening hours; talk of national radio service closures etc.
Most savings made so far has been in terms of productivity efficiency with as much spared as possible in terms of output. However any more substantial cuts will notably affect output as there's not a lot left in efficiency savings that can now be made.0 -
And it's worth noting that all these cuts aren't designed to make the BBC more efficient: as proved above it's already more efficient than its competitors. The cuts are designed to cripple the BBC to the point that the Tories can claim it's no longer fit for purpose and sell it off, or to ensure their paymasters in sky or associated newspapers can operate without BBC competition.0
Advertisement